[TheBoiledEgg]

Originally Posted by vevenyin

Zhang Shuai is 342 pts last week and 313 pts this week!!

she loses 30 pts and gains 1
342=30+1

[Tennis Observer]

Originally Posted by don99

I didn’t include an explanation of the English language either I didn’t think I had to put a detailed explanation of the entire ranking system into my post, the presumption being that the audience here is well versed enough with it that I can make references to specific parts of it. You on the other hand haven’t responded with anything at all to the direct question,” where in the rules does it say you don’t have to include the best two P5 results?” I can show you where it flatly says they must be included. You haven’t come back with anything other than incoherent and extraneous arguments, some hand waving that the plain reading of the undefined term "best two" can be ignored, but can’t point to anything specific.

As WTA shows 1,985 points for Francesca Schiavone in rankings as of 8/13/12, and you predicted 1,926 points, it turned out that you failed. Or: Your conclusion that a penalty 0 can only be used to satisfy the "best 2" requirement when there isn't another, better P5 result available was wrong.

At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding is mine):

• Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.
• A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable) […].
• A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.

From there you should be able to answer the significant question:

Why does WTA count 0 points as Top 20 player's “best” P5 result, if a “better” 1 point result includes her record?

• Only Top 10 players who fail to play a (P5) tournament they committed to, will automatically receive 0 points (former Top 10 player Francesca Schiavone missed her commitment to P5 Tokyo 2011 and automatically received 0 points).
• If a Top 10 player missed two P5 tournaments she committed to, her best two P5 results, may be 0 points even if she (Top 10 player Vera Zvonareva committed to P5s Rome & Cincinnati 2012, didn’t play and as a result automatically received two 0 points. As her two best P5 results may be 0 points, her “better” 1 pointer from P5 Doha 2012 doesn’t count, because 60 points (P600 Sydney 2012) is superior.
• Top 20 players cannot receive 0 points for missing a P5 tournament because they are not obliged to compete at these events. IMHO it’s out of touch to argue that a Top 20 player who received automatically 0 points for missing a P5 tournament during the period she was Top 10 player has to include a “better” 1 pointer because 1 is higher than 0, while Top 10 players’ two best P5 results may be 0 points (let’s assume Top 10 player Vera Zvonareva will be downgrade to Top 20 player status next season with these P5 results: 1-0-0-1 and 60-60 as 15th/16th result. Only those who don’t see the whole picture will conclude that WTA will replace both 60 pointer with two singles).

Bottom line: Those who like to argue on spot have to be prepared to read more than the line which fits to his/her approach.

Originally Posted by don99

And the WTA does not always follow that principle either. Case in point, unless they’ve actually put in new wording since the last time I looked into it, there was nothing in the rules allowing Championships points to be expired before the full 52 weeks. They only specified how eligibility for the Premier Championships would be determined. It didn’t specify at all that Championships points were to be treated any differently than any other result for purposes of the regular rankings. Yet seeding was simply specified as being based on the defined term rankings without any mention of removing prior year Championships points. The WTA’s administration of that “room for interpretation” is not necessarily in a player’s favour. The same problem existed for both eligibility and seeding for the International Championships, where both just said it is based on rankings (which is a defined term referring in the rules to the regular rankings). Yet the WTA administers that “room for interpretation” assuming they can simple modify rankings in a way that is not specified and again not necessarily in the player’s favour. So your third point doesn’t hold water either.

From WTA’s 2012 Official Rulebook (p 163):

[…]The qualification method will count the previous 52 weeks of events, beginning the Monday of the week of the current Premier WTA Championships and dropping off the ranking points earned in the 2011 Premier WTA Championships and the 2011 International Tournament of Champions.

Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT

think your points are wrong for Kirilenko ... she loses 70 gains 30 so should be 2795 […]

You are spot on, but as The Boiled Egg doesn’t adjust his input accordingly, this is not the only flaw (e.g. Garbiñe Muguruza Blanco shows 668 instead of WTA’s 698 ranking points). As input errors are part of every a data typists game, I wouldn’t care and search for alternatives instead! As you are paying close attention to ranking issues, I strongly recommend you to look at tenismaclari (or vlmark as a back up) and cheek if this professional data base fits for your needs.

Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT

[…] I think Kim may get a 0 for missing Cincy, not like it matters

As it is impossible for Top 20 players (in 2011 Kim Clijsters finished as # 13) to receive a Mandatory 0 pointer for not competing in P5s, you are misguided!

It’s a pity that you repeat this noise for another time, ignoring not only all those input written in various posts (some on this page) but also this piece:
From WTA’s 2012 Official Rulebook (p 228, bolding is mine):

A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.

[Tennis Observer]

Vera Zvonareva’s ranking points total as of 8/20/12 will be 2,375 points (2,770 ./. 395 + 0; two best P5 results: two times 0 points for missing her commitments to Rome & Cincinnati) and not 2,281 (updated 8/14/12, 10:28pm), because The Boiled Egg missed to properly implement this easy to read rule for another time:

From WTA 2012 Rulebook (p 228, bolding is mine:

A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0) points under sub-Sections (b) and (c) above.

[SAISAI-GOAT]

when they say "during the year" they mean only calendar year 2012

so if a player skips Doha, then plays Rome and Montreal, Rome and Montreal must count even if they have higher points from 2011 Tokyo

I don't think so because then Vika must count Doha and Rome ... she is not counting Rome but rather counting 2011 Tokyo

[SAISAI-GOAT]

I am really confused who must count what now

Fran is a 2011 Top 10 player 2012 Top 20 player
she got a 0 for missing 2011 Tokyo
in 2012 she got 1 from Rome and 1 from Cincy
so as of next week her 2 best P5 are 1 and 1 but she gets to use the 0 as a result

Vera is a 2012 Top 10 player
she got 0 for Rome and Cincy
she got 1 for Doha
so she gets to use the 0 and 0 and does not have to use the 1
what about her 620 from 2011 Tokyo

[TheBoiledEgg]

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

Vera Zvonareva’s ranking points total as of 8/20/12 will be 2,375 points (2,770 ./. 395 + 0; two best P5 results: two times 0 points for missing her commitments to Rome & Cincinnati) and not 2,281 (updated 8/14/12, 10:28pm), because The Boiled Egg missed to properly implement this easy to read rule for another time:

From WTA 2012 Rulebook (p 228, bolding is mine:

That means at the end of all P5 events been played not half way thru.

You include your best 2 from all 5.

[don99]

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

As WTA shows 1,985 points for Francesca Schiavone in rankings as of 8/13/12, and you predicted 1,926 points, it turned out that you failed. Or: Your conclusion that a penalty 0 can only be used to satisfy the "best 2" requirement when there isn't another, better P5 result available was wrong.

I didn't predict anything at all. I did say the plain reading of the rules leads to 1926 points for Fran not 1985. I also said if they are administering the rules in the way that gives Fran 1985 points, I have no problem with that. The problem I hope they realise is that the rules say something else and should then be amended to remove the conflict between what they are doing and what they wrote must be done. If you cannot understand that much, it is not surprising you cannot see the conflict.

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding is mine):

• Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.
• A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.
• A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable) […].

From there you should be able to answer the significant question:

Why does WTA count 0 points as Top 20 player's “best” P5 result, if a “better” 1 point result includes her record? [...]

• Thank you for the pretense of kindness (coupled with the childish multiple facepalms), this time at least saying "re-read" the sections rather than insolently suggesting I hadn't done so nor taken them into account, as you did in your first response. It is precisely the plain reading of those sections that leads to 1926 not 1985.
• In the above quote, I have rearranged your bullets in the order those sections appear in the rules and will address them in that order.
• Thank you for pointing out what the WTA is doing. Some people might find that useful. I am not one of them. I am well aware of what they have done. Your subsequent points don't even come close to analyzing the actual wording. They merely say what they did. It does not in the least explain where in the rules it says to do it that way in contradiction of the plain reading of the rules they wrote. That is the issue I brought up and you totally miss the point again, merely stating what they have done. The whole point of even having written rules is to have a solid legal basis for what they do, not to write them in a way that requires mystical interpretations. If they and we are to rely on some unspecified methodology, why write anything down, let alone something conflicting with what they do???
• I assumed people here were familiar enough with how a penalty arises, but thank you for spending the time explaining what a penalty is and that penalties must be included in a player's results. There may be people who were not aware of that. I am not one of them. It does nothing to speak to the issue at hand.

I'll reciprocate and explain to you what the plain reading of the words "best two results" means and when that plain meaning can be ignored in favour of some other meaning. (Why do I get the impression I'd have better luck explaining calculus to my cat )

1. Your first bullet simply quotes the section that gives rise to the penalty. We all know where it came from, thank you. It merely establishes that the penalty will be a result of 0, which must ne included in her best 16. Period. That section does not in any way override the P5 requirements stated in the second bullet.
   
2. The section quoted in the second bullet is the first time P5 requirements for top 20 players are set out in the rules. You made a big deal of pointing out and bolding "if played" as if it has some secret meaning. It has no bearing whatsoever on the case at hand. The words "if played" are merely a modification for players who haven't played at least two P5's and We were talking about a player who has. In the case of a player who has played two or more P5's, the requirement clearly states "Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournament". Fran is a top 20 player who has played more than two P5's, the best two of which are 125 and 1. One way out of the conclusion that 125 and 1 must be included, is if the phrase "best two results" is defined in the rules to mean something other than the plain meaning of highest two such results. It is not defined in the rules as something else, so the plain reading is the valid reading. The only other way out of that conclusion is if there is another section which overrides the requirements of bullet two. That brings us to the sentence quoted in the third bullet. It is the one I quoted as being the only possible out from the above interpretation of what they actually wrote.
   
3. The sentence in the last bullet is in the explanations section. It again states "Top 10 Player’s[/b] ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year". It then merely adds clarification that a penalty 0 is first of all treated as a played tournament and that it could in fact be a best two result, "if applicable". It does not say it will automatically be treated as one of the best two. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then it is you who aren't actually reading what they wrote, only reiterating what they do. But I see you have a penchant for ignoring what's written in posts, so it may be asking too much of you to actually read the rules without the bias of forcing an interpretation that's just plain not there.

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

her “better” 1 pointer from P5 Doha 2012 doesn’t count, because 60 points (P600 Sydney 2012) is superior.

You are merely stating what they do. If they have already ignored what they wrote and simply deemed someone to have satisfied the P5 requirement with zeroes, of course all other results are maximal, without interference from the P5 rules. Nowhere have you justified where it says they can use zeroes to satisfy the P5 requirements when there are two or more non-zero P5's. That is the whole point.

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

Top 20 players cannot receive 0 points for missing a P5 tournament because they are not obliged to compete at these events. IMHO it’s out of touch to argue that a Top 20 player who received automatically 0 points for missing a P5 tournament during the period she was Top 10 player has to include a “better” 1 pointer because 1 is higher than 0, while Top 10 players’ two best P5 results may be 0 points

Again responding myopically on purpose. I only addressed the plain interpretation for the example that came up. Nowhere did I say it should apply differently for those two categories of players. They are doing it contrary to the rules they wrote in both the case of a former top 10 and a current top 10. IMHO your "humble opinion" is neither humble nor is it an intelligent response to "show me where is says they can do that in either case".

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

Bottom line: Those who like to argue on spot have to be prepared to read more than the line which fits to his/her approach.

Those who like to post multiple facepalms should be prepared to move their hand from their eyes long enough to actually read both that the rules actually say (not just spout back what everyone can see is being done) and actually read posts commenting on it, before responding.



I'll leave with an analogy I've use before. Some people may take satisfaction when a chair ump confirms a call made by a blind linesperson, that is shown to be clearly out. I personally don't. The players and fans have a right to expect more from the officials on court. The players and fans should also be able to rely on the officials at the WTA to write the rules consistently with what they intend to do, not contrary to it and then simple ignore what they wrote.

[vevenyin]

Originally Posted by TheBoiledEgg

she loses 30 pts and gains 1
342=30+1

yes, and this week she loses 30 pts and gains 1 again
it should be 313, not 317

[pepe72]

Why Azarenka has got over 9000 points? According to WTA she has got 8745 and AFAIK does not play this week.

[Meelis]

Originally Posted by pepe72

Why Azarenka has got over 9000 points? According to WTA she has got 8745 and AFAIK does not play this week.

She loses mandatory zero pointer (Cincinnati 2011) and 280 points will replace it (which are not counted at the moment).

[Kerbicz]

Originally Posted by Meelis

She loses mandatory zero pointer (Cincinnati 2011).

Calling this a "lost" is somewhat frivolous, I should say . Vika's mandatory zero for Cincy'2011 will expire on Monday and the free spot in her "best 16" tally thus created will be filled with her current 17th result (280 points for the Luxembourg title won last October ).

[Tennis Observer]

Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT

[...]Vika must count Doha and Rome ... she is not counting Rome but rather counting 2011 Tokyo

You are spot on: At present, Victoria Azarenka's two best P5 results are 900 (Doha 2012) and 395 points (Tokyo 2011). The latter will anniversary out and can be replaced with 125 points (Rome) or a better result (obviously she has committed to Tokyo 2012).

Originally Posted by SAISAI-GOAT

I am really confused who must count what now

Fran is a 2011 Top 10 player 2012 Top 20 player
she got a 0 for missing 2011 Tokyo
in 2012 she got 1 from Rome and 1 from Cincy
so as of next week her 2 best P5 are 1 and 1 but she gets to use the 0 as a result

Vera is a 2012 Top 10 player
she got 0 for Rome and Cincy
she got 1 for Doha
so she gets to use the 0 and 0 and does not have to use the 1
what about her 620 from 2011 Tokyo

At present, Francesca Schiavone’s two best P5 results are 0 (Tokyo 2011) and 1 (Cincinnati 2012). The mandatory 0 pointer will anniversary out and replaced either with 1 point (Rome 2012) or a better result in Tokyo 2012 (my answer to your question fitted, don’t expect the opposite ten days later!).

Until they will anniversary out, Vera Znovareva’s two best P5 results are both 0 (Rome & Cincinnati 2012). At present 620 points from Tokyo 2011 is her best tournament result.

Originally Posted by TheBoiledEgg

That means at the end of all P5 events been played not half way thru.

You include your best 2 from all 5.

Again, that’s false! After you updated the opener on 8/15/12, 22:04 BST without any notification and showing Vera Zvonareva’s accurate upcoming total of 2,375 points, your realized your blunder (in your update on 8/15/12, 05:36 BST you still failed).

Originally Posted by don99

I didn't predict anything at all. I did say the plain reading of the rules leads to 1926 points for Fran not 1985.

No, that’s not what you wrote as you joined this discussion:

Originally Posted by don99

I would be quite surprised if the WTA were to conclude the same thing. I had thought about this earlier this year, when I decided it was high time I programmed in the P5 rules into my spreadsheet rather than applying them manually. To get an answer to peculiar situations like this one, I went to the actual wording of the rules and concluded that a penalty 0 can only be used to satisfy the "best 2" requirement when there isn't another, better P5 result available.

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

[…] At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding is mine):

• Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.
• A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable) […].
• A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.

Originally Posted by don99

In the above quote, I have rearranged your bullets in the order those sections appear in the rules […].

No, another time you failed (see WTA 2012 Rulebook, p 227-228)! The bullets from section ii. Ranking points treatment appear in chronological order [= lit (b), (d) and (e)].

Originally Posted by don99

It again states "Top 10 Player’s[/b] ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year". It then merely adds clarification that a penalty 0 is first of all treated as a played tournament and that it could in fact be a best two result, "if applicable". It does not say it will automatically be treated as one of the best two. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that, then it is you who aren't actually reading what they wrote, only reiterating what they do. […]

It goes without saying, that a Top 10 player who didn’t miss at least one of four P5 tournaments she committed to, will not penalized with a mandatory 0 pointer. Consequently for these Top 10 players the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points) is not applicable.

Common sense has it that the expression in brackets offers additional information, or in other words: skipping this part will lead to different results. If a player missed all four of her P5 commitments, there is no divergence in the outcome. Therefore those who formed this rule had situations in mind where 0 points count as best result although other better results are available. You don’t acknowledge that but I am confident that you realize that people who wrote the program (please mind: we are talking about a computer ranking!) have implemented the rule in question that way a long time ago!

Originally Posted by don99

[…]Nowhere have you justified where it says they can use zeroes to satisfy the P5 requirements when there are two or more non-zero P5's. That is the whole point.

Yes, I have on several occasions! Independently, at this stage we should agree to disagree that we don’t find common ground in interpreting the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points).

[don99]

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

No, another time you failed (see WTA 2012 Rulebook, p 227-228)! The bullets from section ii. Ranking points treatment appear in chronological order [= lit (b), (d) and (e)].

Yes, there are numerous failures here, unfortunately they are not mine. How many facepalms should I post before pointing out page 223 comes before page 228?

• The P5 rules on page 223 appear before the explanatory notes on page 228. The part relevant to the situation we were discussing is at the end of section XIV.A.4.a and reads, "In addition, a Top 20 Player’s WTA Ranking must include her best two (2) Premier 5 Tournament results, if any." That is the natural place to start, in addressing how the P5 rules currently impact Fran. That is the point I chose to address first.
• To see if the rules say anything else, one looks further and then finds on page 228, XIV.A.6.d "A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0) points under sub-Sections (b) and (c) above." That is the part I addressed next.

On Earth, most people would agree that section 4.a appears before section 6.d, just as the common sense view is that page 223 comes before page 228. That is the logical order in which to evaluate how the rules impact Fran in 2012. (To paraphrase you, in looking only at section 6, "you have failed to take into account the ranking rules in their entirety" )

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

Common sense has it that the expression in brackets offers additional information, or in other words: skipping this part will lead to different results [.....] Therefore those who formed this rule had situations in mind where 0 points count as best result although other better results are available. You don’t acknowledge that but I am confident that you realize that people who wrote the program (please mind: we are talking about a computer ranking!) have implemented the rule in question that way a long time ago!

It goes without saying, that is grasping at straws to try and salvage the situation, but at least you are finally responding to the issue originally raised. It only took how many pages of responding to insolent and divergent nonsense from you to get you to actually think before you post and realise this is the key phrase I zeroed in on in my very first comments!

The entire issue is "How much additional information does the bracketted phrase actually impart?".

1. Your therefore is not a therefore, it is a leap off a cliff magically arriving somewhere else The only common sense information the part in brackets actually adds, is to imply that if there is a penalty 0 it will be treated as if it was a played tournament and as such it [u]MAY[/b] be one of her best two P5's. Ascribing any deeper meaning begs the question, if they had something else in mind, why not simply write it? Better yet, why use the word "best" at all? Simply leaving it out leads to what the programs are doing.
2. Now your arguement is that the document must be interpreted the way the computer routines are written, not the other way around? Sorry, you have that completely backwards. If that where true, it would be completely worthless as a legal document. Furthermore, it's a complete cop out tantamount to simply having the rules say "the rankings will be done in accordance with the computer program".
3. When a hole is found in the logic of the programs, they simply correct it. Why is it such a difficult concept for you to grasp, that the same is routinely done with the document and should be done to address this?

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

Yes, I have on several occasions! Independently, at this stage we should agree to disagree that we don’t find common ground in interpreting the rule in brackets (= which maybe zero (0)points).

You have in fact made only one serious attempt at addressing the simple issue I raised in my first post. That attempt is quoted and responded to above. You could have started with that. I could then have spared this forum pages of responding to your attempts at ridicule, ........ by simply pointing out that "1 is not better than 0" in the same universe where "223 is not before 228"

[shirgan]

#101-250 is missing

[Tennis Observer]

Originally Posted by don99

Yes, there are numerous failures here, unfortunately they are not mine. How many facepalms should I post before pointing out page 223 comes before page 228?

• The P5 rules on page 223 appear before the explanatory notes on page 228. The part relevant to the situation we were discussing is at the end of section XIV.A.4.a and reads, "In addition, a Top 20 Player’s WTA Ranking must include her best two (2) Premier 5 Tournament results, if any." That is the natural place to start, in addressing how the P5 rules currently impact Fran. That is the point I chose to address first.
• To see if the rules say anything else, one looks further and then finds on page 228, XIV.A.6.d "A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable), plus any other zero (0) points under sub-Sections (b) and (c) above." That is the part I addressed next.

On Earth, most people would agree that section 4.a appears before section 6.d, just as the common sense view is that page 223 comes before page 228. That is the logical order in which to evaluate how the rules impact Fran in 2012. (To paraphrase you, in looking only at section 6, "you have failed to take into account the ranking rules in their entirety" )

You made my day!

• I didn’t quote anything from section “4. Tournament Results Comprised in Ranking” in post # 359.
• You don't find any of the three bullets I quoted in post # 359 in section “4. Tournament Results Comprised in Ranking”.
• In post # 369 I enlightened you that the bullets in question were quoted from section [6] ii. Ranking Point Treatment in chronological order. You said you rearranged in the order those sections appear in the rules it and moved e in front of d:

Originally Posted by Tennis Observer

At the time you are prepared to learn why you messed up, it might be a good idea to carefully re-read the appropriate rules (bolding is mine):

• Any Top 10 Player who fails to play in a Premier 5 or Premier 700 Commitment Tournament will automatically receive zero (0) points for the Tournament and it will count on that player’s ranking as one (1) of her best 16 Tournament results.
• A Top 20 Player must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments if played during the year.
• A Top 10 Player’s ranking must include her two (2) best results from Premier 5 Tournaments played during the year (which may be zero (0) points, if applicable) […].

From there you should be able to answer the significant question:

Why does WTA count 0 points as Top 20 player's “best” P5 result, if a “better” 1 point result includes her record?[…]

Would you be so kind and explain in detail how you managed to rearrange bullets that didn’t exist in post # 359?

Originally Posted by don99

It goes without saying, that is grasping at straws to try and salvage the situation, […]

I don’t need to save anything!

You might have realized that my interpretation of the rules in question goes in line with WTA’s computer ranking and yours not. It’s up to you if you reflect why you failed, e.g:

• How Did I resolve ambiguity?
• Did I interpret a provided information in a sensible way or lead my interpretation to a result that the phrase in brackets is practically meaningless?
• Is the result of my interpretation in line with the intention of the rules?

or if you like to stay at the same level as you joined this discussion.

IMO this is poor judgment: If a Top 10 player’s four P5 results are two mandatory 0 pointer for missing her commitments and two singles for an earliest exist, then she has to count her singles as two best P5 results; this brings her to four countable P5 tournaments, whereas a Top 20 player only has to include her two best P5 results if played. IMO the only reasonable meaning of the expression “which may be zero (0) points, if applicable” is that a Top 10 player who received a mandatory 0 pointer for missing a P5 tournament will count this as one of her two best P5 results.

I know that your view is different because you are under the impression your interpretation is correct and WTA's computer ranking is wrong. Beat this dead horse again & again, if you feel better. But as there is not the slightest chance that we find common ground, don’t expect an additional input to this topic from me!